Social sciences

Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses

Article Abstract:

We examined the effects of computerized interviewing on applicant responses within the context of a laboratory simulation in which subjects were interviewed for either a low- or high-status position (clerk or management trainee) under one of four interview conditions: computerized, paper-and-pencil, or face-to-face with a warm or a cold behaving interviewer. The results indicated that subjects in nonsocial (computer or paper-and-pencil) interview conditions both scored lower on the Marlowe-Crowne measure of socially desirable responding (SDR) and reported their grade point averages and scholastic aptitude scores more accurately (with less inflation) than those in the face-to-face interview conditions. However, the use of nonsocial screening interviews for the high-status position engendered significantly higher levels of applicant resentment about the interview, relative to the conditions in which the interview procedure was appropriate (or more than appropriate) for the position level. This unintended behavioral consequence suggests one of the bounds that may influence the effectiveness of computerized interviewing. Contrary to expectations, we did not find the interpersonal style of the interviewer to significantly affect applicant resentment or SDR. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the interview

Article Abstract:

We conducted a field study to test eight propositions derived from a process model of the selection interview (Dipboye, 1982; Dipboye & Macan, 1988). According to the model, interviewers' preinterview impressions of an applicant bias for the subsequent conduct of the interview and processing of information in the direction of confirming these initial impressions. To test predictions from the model, we surveyed managers and the applicants they interviewed in each of 164 interviews. In support of the model, interviewers' preinterview evaluations were positively related to postinterview evaluations of applicant qualifications and process variables predicted to mediate this relation. Results also supported the model in that interviewers with favorable preinterview impressions were more likely to attribute good interview performances to the applicants' qualifications for the job and poor performances to external factors. Contrary to the model, confidence failed to moderate the above findings, and preinterview impressions were not predictive of applicant reports of interviewers' time spent in questioning. Some possible implications of the model for future research and for improving interview practice are discussed. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Effects of training and information on the accuracy and reliability of job evaluations

Article Abstract:

Subjects evaluated 23 benchmark jobs on 10 dimensions after either receiving training or no training in job evaluation and after being given only a title, only a job description, or both a title and job description. The amount of information affected primarily the accuracy and reliability of the ratings. Those given both a title and a job description were generally more accurate and reliable in their ratings than those given only a title. Trained subjects demonstrated less leniency and greater dispersion than did those who were untrained. Although training affected primarily the distribution of ratings, the most accurate and reliable subjects tended to be those who received training as well as full information in the form of a job description and title. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)